DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: eric42434224 on April 19, 2011, 12:35:19 PM
-
So many people have stated that Obama has done such a terrible job. I would like to hear from some of these people, sharing specific instances of what exactly he did wrong, coupled with what he should have done.
I personally think that no one is perfect, and clearly mistakes have been made.....but without the luxury of hind-sight, and given the same knowledge and circumstances, what would you have done differently, and why?
-
I would have:
1.) Brought all our troops home
2.) Not started a third war in Libya
3.) Closed GITMO
4.) Leave the UN
5.) Not sign two 2700+ bills without reading them
6.) Lifted the drilling moratoriums (I also wouldn't give Brazil our money for them to drill for oil)
7.) No "stimulus" bill
8.) NO bailouts
That's a start.
-
I would have:
1.) Brought all our troops home
2.) Not started a third war in Libya
3.) Closed GITMO
4.) Leave the UN
5.) Not sign two 2700+ bills without reading them
6.) Lifted the drilling moratoriums (I also wouldn't give Brazil our money for them to drill for oil)
7.) No "stimulus" bill
8.) NO bailouts
That's a start.
I guess you didnt read my post. Your responses have absolutely zero rationale with them. For instance...the bailouts. Why was it wrong, what would you have done differently to solve the problem, why would you have done it, and what would you expect the results to be?
Just saying all those things were wrong, with no reasoning or alternatives, just appears...to me at least...that you dont know why...or even if...what he did was wrong.
Thx
-
We didn't start a war in Libya... ???
-
Yeah I don't remember that either.
Maybe we should bring the troops back from Libya!
Oh wait..
-
Pardon the ignorance but how easy is it to just do those things Praxis mentioned as President? Surely Congress could override you at some point or make it difficult to even attempt some of those things.
-
I would have:
1.) Brought all our troops home
2.) Not started a third war in Libya
3.) Closed GITMO
4.) Leave the UN
5.) Not sign two 2700+ bills without reading them
6.) Lifted the drilling moratoriums (I also wouldn't give Brazil our money for them to drill for oil)
7.) No "stimulus" bill
8.) NO bailouts
That makes a good president? Get your head out of the sand, Praxis. You seemingly have no concept of politics.
rumborak
-
Way to drop the 'b', dude.
-
I know not what you speak of :blush
rumborak
-
I would have:
1.) Brought all our troops home
2.) Not started a third war in Libya
3.) Closed GITMO
4.) Leave the UN
5.) Not sign two 2700+ bills without reading them
6.) Lifted the drilling moratoriums (I also wouldn't give Brazil our money for them to drill for oil)
7.) No "stimulus" bill
8.) NO bailouts
That's a start.
I guess you didnt read my post. Your responses have absolutely zero rationale with them. For instance...the bailouts. Why was it wrong, what would you have done differently to solve the problem, why would you have done it, and what would you expect the results to be?
Just saying all those things were wrong, with no reasoning or alternatives, just appears...to me at least...that you dont know why...or even if...what he did was wrong.
Thx
No rationale? Campaign Barry promised half of them. As for the bailouts, the companies should have failed. It would have been a much worse recession, but it would have self corrected, just like in 1919 without gov't intervention. Why should companies get a preference over others? AIG got a bailout (Goldman Sachs benefited from that directly) and Lehman Bros was allowed to go bankrupt (Goldman Sachs benefited from that too, L.B. was a competitor in the carbon trading scheme they're trying to establish with cap and trade).
Also, GM should have been allowed to file Chapter 11, but instead, to protect the UAW, it was a controlled bankruptcy, so the shareholders got screwed.
For every other company, when you go bankrupt, does it suck? Yea, you bet it does, but the pain is short term. The company reorganizes and then can start rehiring. You don't just prop up a failed entity as-is and get garbage like the Volt.
-
We didn't start a war in Libya... ???
Right, it's "kinetic military action" :lol :\
-
I would have:
1.) Brought all our troops home
2.) Not started a third war in Libya
3.) Closed GITMO
4.) Leave the UN
5.) Not sign two 2700+ bills without reading them
6.) Lifted the drilling moratoriums (I also wouldn't give Brazil our money for them to drill for oil)
7.) No "stimulus" bill
8.) NO bailouts
That's a start.
I guess you didnt read my post. Your responses have absolutely zero rationale with them. For instance...the bailouts. Why was it wrong, what would you have done differently to solve the problem, why would you have done it, and what would you expect the results to be?
Just saying all those things were wrong, with no reasoning or alternatives, just appears...to me at least...that you dont know why...or even if...what he did was wrong.
Thx
No rationale? Campaign Barry promised half of them. As for the bailouts, the companies should have failed. It would have been a much worse recession, but it would have self corrected, just like in 1919 without gov't intervention. Why should companies get a preference over others? AIG got a bailout (Goldman Sachs benefited from that directly) and Lehman Bros was allowed to go bankrupt (Goldman Sachs benefited from that too, L.B. was a competitor in the carbon trading scheme they're trying to establish with cap and trade).
Also, GM should have been allowed to file Chapter 11, but instead, to protect the UAW, it was a controlled bankruptcy, so the shareholders got screwed.
For every other company, when you go bankrupt, does it suck? Yea, you bet it does, but the pain is short term. The company reorganizes and then can start rehiring. You don't just prop up a failed entity as-is and get garbage like the Volt.
I'm with Praxis, he answered the question
-
Well that's a good vow of confidence.
-
Thanks. :biggrin:
Btw, EPIC, I got your message a few days ago and tried to respond, but it said your mailbox was full. It was some great info!
-
Yes...the Healthcare bill not being read and slammed down our throats was aweful.
How about the budget not getting done in two years?
how about all the Czars? Van Jones? HORRIBLE. We never ever heard the term before Obama
How about appointing Holder?
How about the treatment of Israel? and other allies
How about doing nothing during the Iranian protests, but going into Libya , the hypocrisy
How about pardoning the Black Panthers in the Philly Case?
How about his lack of leadership in the gulf oil spill?
How about not going on FOX?
How about the threat of Fairness Doctrine?
-
Bush invented the czar. Don't kid yourself
-
Thanks. :biggrin:
Btw, EPIC, I got your message a few days ago and tried to respond, but it said your mailbox was full. It was some great info!
Youre welcome..sorry my Inbox got filled quick that day...my apologies bro
-
I would have:
1.) Brought all our troops home
2.) Not started a third war in Libya
3.) Closed GITMO
4.) Leave the UN
5.) Not sign two 2700+ bills without reading them
6.) Lifted the drilling moratoriums (I also wouldn't give Brazil our money for them to drill for oil)
7.) No "stimulus" bill
8.) NO bailouts
That's a start.
I'm with you on some of these. Others, not so much. All of them, completely impossible under the current system. As I said the other day, you occasionally make points that would be pretty sound under a dictatorship, but are little more than gibberish here in 'Merika.
how about all the Czars? Van Jones? HORRIBLE. We never ever heard the term before Obama
What term? Czar? I think Reagan's senile ass was the first to appoint a czar. Drug czar in '82.
-
We didn't start a war in Libya... ???
Right, it's "kinetic military action" :lol :\
:tup
-
How about sending his Uncle Rail Odinga 2 million of our dollars if not more
How about him campaigning for Odinga in Kenya. ( find out who his uncle is)
-
How about Obama's illegal aunt still being in the country
How about his demonizing of the Tea Party and the verbage he uses.
How about that " if they bring a knife we will bring a gun" stuff
How about his BS after that congress woman got shot that it was the "Tea Party" that was raising the verbage that caused this sort of shooting, when that had nothing to do with it..HORRIBLE.
and he says nothing when Walker in MN is being run over by Liberals calling him every horrible name ever and the death threats he got and Obama sat silent..the hypocrisy of it
How about his illegal land deal with Rezko?
-
The Tea Party demonizes itself, honestly.
-
How aabout having Imelt as a Czar who has deals with Iran and and pays no tax.
-
Obama didn't say anything about the tea party after giffords was shot. He said political rhetoric needs to be toned down.
I think you're determined to hate him. And I think you'll believe anything bad said about him to affirm that for you
-
It was that idiot Krugman who immediately blamed the Tea Party for the Tuscon shooting... he then called for civility.. but in yesterday's column Kruggie said it's time to not be civil... what exactly is he advocating? :eek
-
This is the kind of news you read while checking out of the supermarket, it's usually next to news about Brad and Angelina.
-
How aabout having Imelt as a Czar who has deals with Iran and and pays no tax.
Sounds like pretty much everybody in Washington. And after a quick read up on the guy, kind reminds me of Cheney. And you seem to forget that the entire Bush administration was in bed with the Saudis and the Iraqis (before they had to choose between one or the other).
-
Obama didn't say anything about the tea party after giffords was shot. He said political rhetoric needs to be toned down.
I think you're determined to hate him. And I think you'll believe anything bad said about him to affirm that for you
and did he say a word to help Walker? who was getting death threats and having his capital building destroyed?...not a word,.... complete silence..and again rhetoric was not ths issue with that poor Gabby Giffords shooting..but Obama used her shooting to silence his critics..and allow his Union thugs SEIU to run amock in MN, showed what a fraud Obama is.
My issue is the hypocrisy. . dont you see it? Obama used that shooting to silence his oppositon who had noithing to do with her shooting
-
How aabout having Imelt as a Czar who has deals with Iran and and pays no tax.
Sounds like pretty much everybody in Washington. And after a quick read up on the guy, kind reminds me of Cheney. And you seem to forget that the entire Bush administration was in bed with the Saudis and the Iraqis (before they had to choose between one or the other).
9/11 happened 8 months into his Presidency..I thank him for my safety and keeping the country strong until the final 2 years when Pelosi got in power..she was going to clean up the swamp, every day GWB was an oil guy who was gouging us at the pump..LOL. now look at gas prices since Obama..and not a word
-
How about the Jack Murtha ,Hadith Marines kangaroo court conviction before they got a trial.
Obama openly supported Murthas claims.
That one made me sick
-
Epicview, you realize that Obama's more or less a neocon who's continued many Bush practices and policies, don't you?
They're really not all that different. I'd be happy if I shared your views.
-
Epicview, you realize that Obama's more or less a neocon who's continued many Bush practices and policies, don't you?
They're really not all that different. I'd be happy if I shared your views.
what is a Neocon? I hate the term..and im not into all that stuff.
lets stay on subject if we can, but I didnt want to be rude and not respond
-
I would have:
1.) Brought all our troops home
2.) Not started a third war in Libya
3.) Closed GITMO
4.) Leave the UN
5.) Not sign two 2700+ bills without reading them
6.) Lifted the drilling moratoriums (I also wouldn't give Brazil our money for them to drill for oil)
7.) No "stimulus" bill
8.) NO bailouts
That's a start.
I guess you didnt read my post. Your responses have absolutely zero rationale with them. For instance...the bailouts. Why was it wrong, what would you have done differently to solve the problem, why would you have done it, and what would you expect the results to be?
Just saying all those things were wrong, with no reasoning or alternatives, just appears...to me at least...that you dont know why...or even if...what he did was wrong.
Thx
No rationale? Campaign Barry promised half of them. As for the bailouts, the companies should have failed. It would have been a much worse recession, but it would have self corrected, just like in 1919 without gov't intervention. Why should companies get a preference over others? AIG got a bailout (Goldman Sachs benefited from that directly) and Lehman Bros was allowed to go bankrupt (Goldman Sachs benefited from that too, L.B. was a competitor in the carbon trading scheme they're trying to establish with cap and trade).
Also, GM should have been allowed to file Chapter 11, but instead, to protect the UAW, it was a controlled bankruptcy, so the shareholders got screwed.
For every other company, when you go bankrupt, does it suck? Yea, you bet it does, but the pain is short term. The company reorganizes and then can start rehiring. You don't just prop up a failed entity as-is and get garbage like the Volt.
I'm with Praxis, he answered the question
Actually, he didnt. He said he would have allowed them to fail, and says everything would have corrected itself.....yet there is no way to know that. It could have been alot worse. Obamas bailouts may have averted a deeper recession, and possibly started the recovery sooner. My point is that you dont know if what he did was wrong. It seems that you both just base your opinions on the negative feelings. Maybe your way would have taught Wall Street a lesson...and hurt American families much more severely. Not sure how that could be considered the "right" decision. Again...my point is that it really isnt right to call that a bad decision, as it may very well have been the correct one....or even the ONLY one.
EDIT: Just so we are clear, you both agree that it is better to let the companies fail, putting the country into a deeper and longer recession, straining the economy and financial markets around the world.....and in effect directly and negatively affecting the well being of American familes? Really?
-
Epicview, you realize that Obama's more or less a neocon who's continued many Bush practices and policies, don't you?
They're really not all that different. I'd be happy if I shared your views.
what is a Neocon? I hate the term..and im not into all that stuff.
lets stay on subject if we can, but I didnt want to be rude and not respond
Not to be rude, but you arent staying on subject either. Instead of posting rants about what he did, perhaps pick just one, and respond with what you would have done differently, and why.
-
Epicview, you realize that Obama's more or less a neocon who's continued many Bush practices and policies, don't you?
They're really not all that different. I'd be happy if I shared your views.
what is a Neocon? I hate the term..and im not into all that stuff.
lets stay on subject if we can, but I didnt want to be rude and not respond
Not to be rude, but you arent staying on subject either. Instead of posting rants about what he did, perhaps pick just one, and respond with what you would have done differently, and why.
Just one????LOL... if he just did the oppostie in each case and that would be what should have been done, but ok I will try to say what he should have done tomorrow
-
Epicview, you realize that Obama's more or less a neocon who's continued many Bush practices and policies, don't you?
They're really not all that different. I'd be happy if I shared your views.
what is a Neocon? I hate the term..and im not into all that stuff.
lets stay on subject if we can, but I didnt want to be rude and not respond
Not to be rude, but you arent staying on subject either. Instead of posting rants about what he did, perhaps pick just one, and respond with what you would have done differently, and why.
Just one????LOL... if he just did the oppostie in each case and that would be what should have been done, but ok I will try to say what he should have done tomorrow
In regards to the Bailouts then....Just so we are clear, you and Praxis both agree that it is better to let the companies fail, putting the country into a deeper and longer recession, straining the economy and financial markets around the world.....and in effect directly and negatively affecting the well being of American familes? Really?
-
Epicview, you realize that Obama's more or less a neocon who's continued many Bush practices and policies, don't you?
They're really not all that different. I'd be happy if I shared your views.
what is a Neocon? I hate the term..and im not into all that stuff.
lets stay on subject if we can, but I didnt want to be rude and not respond
Not to be rude, but you arent staying on subject either. Instead of posting rants about what he did, perhaps pick just one, and respond with what you would have done differently, and why.
Just one????LOL... if he just did the oppostie in each case and that would be what should have been done, but ok I will try to say what he should have done tomorrow
In regards to the Bailouts then....Just so we are clear, you and Praxis both agree that it is better to let the companies fail, putting the country into a deeper and longer recession, straining the economy and financial markets around the world.....and in effect directly and negatively affecting the well being of American familes? Really?
YES
-
Epicview, you realize that Obama's more or less a neocon who's continued many Bush practices and policies, don't you?
They're really not all that different. I'd be happy if I shared your views.
what is a Neocon? I hate the term..and im not into all that stuff.
lets stay on subject if we can, but I didnt want to be rude and not respond
Not to be rude, but you arent staying on subject either. Instead of posting rants about what he did, perhaps pick just one, and respond with what you would have done differently, and why.
Just one????LOL... if he just did the oppostie in each case and that would be what should have been done, but ok I will try to say what he should have done tomorrow
In regards to the Bailouts then....Just so we are clear, you and Praxis both agree that it is better to let the companies fail, putting the country into a deeper and longer recession, straining the economy and financial markets around the world.....and in effect directly and negatively affecting the well being of American familes? Really?
YES
Interesting that one who purports to love America so much, would be willing to have the country and its citizens suffer more, and longer, just to teach wall street a lesson.
I would bet dollars to donoughts that a very large percentage of those that feel this way would flip flop if it were a president they liked.
-
^ they would have restructured under chapter 11 etc. or had a rival buy them out or gone into a partnership with the buying Co.
but much like housing a bottom needs to be found, so markets can find that bottom and cue off of it.
whats unfair is that he wont bail out all Cos!!!..thats the hypocisy and pandoras box he opened. Will he bail my Co out???...or only ones with UNION workers? Hmmmmm
many Co's do go out of business..and poor management is the cause, so if thats their fate so be it. we live in AMERICA. Obamas bail out of GM and the VOLT to me and others is influencing his no drill moratoreum and why he has stated he is fine with the high gas prices..he said he just didnt like them going up too fast.
Obama just told a guy that cant affford the gas for his SUV ( he has 6 kids the guy asking the question) to "buy a new car"..if the guy could buy a new car he could afford the gas...Obama is horrible and out to lunch and not a leader
-
Epicview, you realize that Obama's more or less a neocon who's continued many Bush practices and policies, don't you?
They're really not all that different. I'd be happy if I shared your views.
what is a Neocon? I hate the term..and im not into all that stuff.
lets stay on subject if we can, but I didnt want to be rude and not respond
Not to be rude, but you arent staying on subject either. Instead of posting rants about what he did, perhaps pick just one, and respond with what you would have done differently, and why.
Just one????LOL... if he just did the oppostie in each case and that would be what should have been done, but ok I will try to say what he should have done tomorrow
In regards to the Bailouts then....Just so we are clear, you and Praxis both agree that it is better to let the companies fail, putting the country into a deeper and longer recession, straining the economy and financial markets around the world.....and in effect directly and negatively affecting the well being of American familes? Really?
No bailouts = worse recession, but also = shorter recession (see 1919).
Markets self correct in 6-12 months and the companies that failed are restructured and rehiring... happens all the time.
Bailouts = prolonging the inevitable.
If you think the recession we just experienced was bad, you have no idea how the oncoming collapse is going to be. :(
-
^ they would have restructured under chapter 11 etc. or had a rival buy them out or gone into a partnership with the buying Co.
but much like housing a bottom needs to be found, so markets can find that bottom and cue off of it.
whats unfair is that he wont bail out all Cos..thats the hypocisy and pandoras box he opened.
many Cos do go out of business..and poor management is the cause, so if thats their fate so be it. we live in AMERICA. Obamas bail out GM and the VOLT to me nad others is influneinc his no drill moratoreum and why he has stated he is fine with the high gas prices..he sadi he just didnt like them going up too fast.
Obama just told a guy he cant affford the gas for hsi SUV ( he has 6 kids the guy asking the question) to "buy a new car"..if the guy could buy a new car he could afford the gas...Obama is horrible and out to lucn and not a leader
You obviously are unaware of the financial entanglements that were in play. It was not simply one company going under....the ramifications of AIG alone going under would have been disastrous to a huge number of other financial companies, banks, municipalities, and citizens.
-
^ they would have restructured under chapter 11 etc. or had a rival buy them out or gone into a partnership with the buying Co.
but much like housing a bottom needs to be found, so markets can find that bottom and cue off of it.
whats unfair is that he wont bail out all Cos..thats the hypocisy and pandoras box he opened.
many Cos do go out of business..and poor management is the cause, so if thats their fate so be it. we live in AMERICA. Obamas bail out GM and the VOLT to me nad others is influneinc his no drill moratoreum and why he has stated he is fine with the high gas prices..he sadi he just didnt like them going up too fast.
Obama just told a guy he cant affford the gas for hsi SUV ( he has 6 kids the guy asking the question) to "buy a new car"..if the guy could buy a new car he could afford the gas...Obama is horrible and out to lucn and not a leader
You obviously are unaware of the financial entanglements that were in play. It was not simply one company going under....the ramifications of AIG alone going under would have been disastrous to a huge number of other financial companies, banks, municipalities, and citizens.
Oh I do know...and nothing may have happened, it was a credit float
-
look at who Obama bailed out? whats the common thread?
Have a nice night everyone!!
Peace!!
-
:rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
LOLOL @ this thread's development
Seriously, where does Epicview get these things?
I don't like Obama at all, he's just another puppet of the corporate industry - but these claims are just hopelessly ridiculous.
-
Overlooking the Uncle Odinga and "Bush kept us safe and strong" nonsense, Praxis and EV might be right about the bailouts. I'm really not sure one way or the other. I can certainly appreciate both points of view and therefore how somebody might favor one over the other. The problem is that because of today's political climate, accepting that something's a tough call with no clear-cut solution doesn't fly anymore. Everything's either vitally important to the nations very survival, or the biggest blunder since the dawn of man. Maybe it was just a tough call with no right or wrong answer and we haven't seen how it'll turn out yet.
-
What was everybody's take on the $600 and per person tax rebate Bush did. Do you think that we spent the money which was good for business, got rid of debt or did Americans put it in the bank. Was this better than bailing out big business or not?
-
What was everybody's take on the $600 and per person tax rebate Bush did. Do you think that we spent the money which was good for business, got rid of debt or did Americans put it in the bank. Was this better than bailing out big business or not?
I pumped mine into the European economy. :lol
-
What was everybody's take on the $600 and per person tax rebate Bush did. Do you think that we spent the money which was good for business, got rid of debt or did Americans put it in the bank. Was this better than bailing out big business or not?
I pumped mine into the European economy. :lol
:lol
I've always wondered if some of the bailout money was put again as a tax break would Americans spend, spend, spend helping the economy of does it not help enough. I'm not well versed enough to figure it out.
-
I don't know much about economics, but I've heard it's an effective way to instigate very short-term economic growth.
I would've invested it in high-speed rail regardless.
-
Eh, Obama's a stinker. It's too bad that no-one decent on the other side can compete with him. Personally, while I support a number of Obama's policies (like Healthcare) I think he's done a horrible job at selling them to the US people. He talks over people's heads. Honestly, I think Huckabee's onto something with the "Simple Government" thing. Obama's administration doesn't seem to be able to boil things down to a level that people can understand.
Overlooking the Uncle Odinga and "Bush kept us safe and strong" nonsense, Praxis and EV might be right about the bailouts. I'm really not sure one way or the other. I can certainly appreciate both points of view and therefore how somebody might favor one over the other. The problem is that because of today's political climate, accepting that something's a tough call with no clear-cut solution doesn't fly anymore. Everything's either vitally important to the nations very survival, or the biggest blunder since the dawn of man. Maybe it was just a tough call with no right or wrong answer and we haven't seen how it'll turn out yet.
Yeah, I feel this way too. Like you said, it's a tough call.
-
In regards to the Bailouts then....Just so we are clear, you and Praxis both agree that it is better to let the companies fail, putting the country into a deeper and longer recession, straining the economy and financial markets around the world.....and in effect directly and negatively affecting the well being of American familes? Really?
The idea of a deeper and longer recession is a bit questionable, but it's like dealing with a drug addict. Sometimes they need to bottom out in order to get to the point where pure survival is more important than the drug. In this case, the drug is creating profit from pure numbers instead of value, and we haven't collectively realized we can't do that.
-
:rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
LOLOL @ this thread's development
Seriously, where does Epicview get these things?
I don't like Obama at all, he's just another puppet of the corporate industry - but these claims are just hopelessly ridiculous.
Hello Jsem,
How do you figure that my posts are not accurate?
-
take it easy jsem. Those sorts of posts aren't productive
-
What was everybody's take on the $600 and per person tax rebate Bush did. Do you think that we spent the money which was good for business, got rid of debt or did Americans put it in the bank. Was this better than bailing out big business or not?
I liked it Kings!! I got that check and I did spend it. thats my take!!
and to your other point to me "Bailout = buying of Union votes and payback to the Unions"
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Wall Street is a large Union bloc
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Wall Street is a large Union bloc
TARP = Wall Street bailouts.
"stimulus" bill = state union bailouts.
The money ran out so now states are laying off public employees.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Wall Street is a large Union bloc
That was the GWB credit float.. I dont consider that a bailout it was labeled as TARP, what GWB did was float the credit over night, so the markets could function, and the bond market would be stable. etc
This is a bailout of the Unions
https://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2009/05/will-gm-bailout-be-obamas-tipping-point
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Wall Street is a large Union bloc
TARP = Wall Street bailouts.
"stimulus" bill = state union bailouts.
The money ran out so now states are laying off public employees.
Right on Praxis!!! we almost said the same thing!!
-
Oh, if you want to talk about bailouts and Unions...
Don't forget that Bush bailed out the Big 3 auto companies
Auto workers being a large Union bloc
-
I would like to hear the alternative to the bank bailouts. Let them go down and drag myriads others with it?
The problem is Too Big To Fail, and that banks were allowed to become that.
rumborak
-
Oh, if you want to talk about bailouts and Unions...
Don't forget that Bush bailed out the Big 3 auto companies
Auto workers being a large Union bloc
again... Bush gave the auto makers time to restructure.
Obama took stock in the Auto Cos..and as we see is vested now, and is ties into his energy policy.
the NY Times is a liberal yellow journalism rag, they are parcing words but even they cant say its NOT Obama
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/20/business/20auto.html
This article shows Obama PUSHING GWB to give the bail out.
https://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/11/obama-bush-auto-industry-colombia
It was the first test of wills between Obama, who as a Democrat instinctively favours intervention, and Bush, who is still ideologically resistant to using federal funds to prop up private companies. Although Bush was forced to agree to a $700bn (£454bn) rescue package for the banking, insurance and mortgage industries, he has so far drawn a line at the car companies.
-
Not that I blame him but I love how Bush's "time to restructure" was merely just a "oh shit I better hand this off before it gets really bad". So say Obama wasn't becoming president in those next few months, what would Bush have done?
-
Also, waiting a few months before doing anything during the financial crisis would have been irresponsible to say the least. All governments across the world did the same action, this is not an Obama thing.
rumborak
-
Not that I blame him but I love how Bush's "time to restructure" was merely just a "oh shit I better hand this off before it gets really bad". So say Obama wasn't becoming president in those next few months, what would Bush have done?
read the other aticle above.. and GWB was leaving office, Bush was NOT going to bail out a private Co
-
Eh lemme rethink that.
-
I would like to hear the alternative to the bank bailouts. Let them go down and drag myriads others with it?
The problem is Too Big To Fail, and that banks were allowed to become that.
rumborak
I"m interested in this as well. What would the conservatives have done?
-
The problem is, as I understand it, the auto bailout worked. Chrysler and GM are both operating fairly well at the moment, and they're on track to pay back 78% of 85 billion in taxpayer bread. And BTW, Dumbass's initial contribution of 17B was nearly doubled by the time he left office. He covered well over a third of it, and it's looking like he was right to do so. Considering the number of jobs at stake, I'd say that it probably wasn't too bad an investment.
-
The banks which got bailout also have paid back vast amounts of their borrowed money, with nice interest for the gov't IIRC.
rumborak
-
The problem is, as I understand it, the auto bailout worked. Chrysler and GM are both operating fairly well at the moment, and they're on track to pay back 78% of 85 billion in taxpayer bread. And BTW, Dumbass's initial contribution of 17B was nearly doubled by the time he left office. He covered well over a third of it, and it's looking like he was right to do so. Considering the number of jobs at stake, I'd say that it probably wasn't too bad an investment.
Cough... EB, bro....
we as taxpayers are about to lose 11billion..id say thats more like failing, and Obama is manipulating the oil prices to coerse us into buying into the VOLT and his insane Cap and Trade bill..
https://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iQ772RYgyZRuijNjN58Syvf8HExw?docId=CNG.862196b5b90a6d3e5734cc272997d1cd.a51
-
OH PLEASE
That is by far the most far fetched thing I've heard from you yet EV
Obama is NOT MANIPULATING OIL PRICES
-
Cough... EB, bro....
we as taxpayers are about to lose 11billion..id say thats more like failing, and Obama is manipulating the oil prices to coerse us into buying into the VOLT and his insane Cap and Trade bill..
As opposed to the cost of allowing a cornerstone industry to collapse? I'd be willing to bet that 11b is a bargain.
And I'm going to assume that the horrific loss of 11 billion dollars only comes out of Obama's share of the 81, and not Bushes fairly hefty share.
-
OH PLEASE
That is by far the most far fetched thing I've heard from you yet EV
Obama is NOT MANIPULATING OIL PRICES
of course he is, by the spectre of his insane Cap and Trade, his slamming of coal, and his no drill moratoreum. that allows speculators to rise the price. we are seeing it TODAY!!!
Many have said this week that if Obama came out and just saidmonth ago " Drill Baby Drill...and we will drill everywhere" it would change the game and prices would come down.. thats how it works. Obama is driving the prices up..PERIOD, there is NO DOUBT of it..sadly
why do you think its far fetched? its certainly not..
-
Cough... EB, bro....
we as taxpayers are about to lose 11billion..id say thats more like failing, and Obama is manipulating the oil prices to coerse us into buying into the VOLT and his insane Cap and Trade bill..
As opposed to the cost of allowing a cornerstone industry to collapse? I'd be willing to bet that 11b is a bargain.
And I'm going to assume that the horrific loss of 11 billion dollars only comes out of Obama's share of the 81, and not Bushes fairly hefty share.
who said it would collpase? it would not have, merger woudl have happpened is my guess
-
If Obama is "slamming coal", then bravo for him.
As for offshore drilling, you do realize how long it would take from the word "go" for production to begin, right? Words don't change gas prices, a steady supply of crude does.
-
If Obama is "slamming coal", then bravo for him.
As for offshore drilling, you do realize how long it would take from the word "go" for production to begin, right? Words don't change gas prices, a steady supply of crude does.
so lets destroy the coal industry...super. we dont need those jobs and energy source. what will we use instead?
I know..Obama is saving us with Wind Power, how long till thats viable?
and of course everyone knows it takes years and investment to get a working rig on or off shore, but thats simply what needs to be done..and its being done in our backyard..JUST NOT BY US, look at the gulf and who is drilling..Obama is the worst..
-
It's fun playing armchair president, isn't it?
-
95% of mortgages were being paid on time during the "crisis." The global bankers stole our money to cover there backsides on creating the derivatives scheme.
-
OH PLEASE
That is by far the most far fetched thing I've heard from you yet EV
Obama is NOT MANIPULATING OIL PRICES
read this.. and then let me know if Im "far fetched"...I am not
its the whole issue, I only deal in the real issues actually
I know at times it seems im "off base" but I bring lots of issues into the pictures as they all are
part of the issue..
Please read
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Cap-and-Trade-%E2%80%93-A-Future-Train-Wreck.html
-
95% of mortgages were being paid on time during the "crisis." The global bankers stole our money to cover there backsides on creating the derivatives scheme.
Yes...MBS. all dating back to Barnie Frank and Maxine Waters, Chris Dodd and why TARP was needed to get that toxic assets off the books so lending could continue..etc. it actually dates back to Carter
-
Agh. I never post here, but now I must.
so lets destroy the coal industry...super. we dont need those jobs and energy source. what will we use instead?
Oh, yeah. The jobs. We can't afford to not have people working in horrible conditions and catching black lung and getting killed by cave-ins. We'd be getting rid of the ideal job, right? Besides, I don't think coal will be done away with, at least not just yet. Unfortunately, we rely on it.
But hell, if he wants to inch us away from being a coal-reliant country, good for him.
and of coursde everyone knows it takes years and investment to get a working rig on or off shore, but thats simplley what needs to be done..and its being done in our backyard..JUST NOT BY US, look at the gulf and who is drilling..Obama is the worst..
Do you understand that 30% of our oil production is done offshore already?
Also, let's not kid ourselves. Our own oil production isn't exactly extremely consequential to our amount of oil. We probably consume more than Europe combined, and possibly almost as much as Asia, but we don't produce nearly as much as other areas. Not even factoring in the difficulties we would face (it would take years, as you said yourself) I don't think we're looking at a major difference if we start even making attempts to drill offshore more than the 30% that we already do.
-
We have tons of coal and should be utilizing technology to get it, use it, and sell it.
-
We have tons of coal and should be utilizing technology to get it, use it, and sell it.
and lets not forgot the entire communities that would become ghost towns if coal is not used..
the loss of jobs would be enormous , including the rails.
-
We have tons of coal and should be utilizing technology to get it, use it, and sell it.
and lets not forgot the entire communities that would become ghost towns if coal is not used..
the loss of jobs would be enormous , including the rails.
Weren't you pro letting the industries helped by the bailout fail?
-
Ontario's reduced the output of coal-based power plants by 70% over the last 7 years. It's definitely possible to do, and the environmental impacts, particularly with regards to CO2 emissions, are overwhelmingly worthwhile.
-
We have tons of coal and should be utilizing technology to get it, use it, and sell it.
and lets not forgot the entire communities that would become ghost towns if coal is not used..
the loss of jobs would be enormous , including the rails.
Weren't you pro letting the industries helped by the bailout fail?
Yes. coal is not looking for a bailout, but to be allowed to thrive and not be destroyed under Cap and Trade
-
We have tons of coal and should be utilizing technology to get it, use it, and sell it.
and lets not forgot the entire communities that would become ghost towns if coal is not used..
the loss of jobs would be enormous , including the rails.
Weren't you pro letting the industries helped by the bailout fail?
Failure through awful business practices is one thing (companies that didn't need help to fail), but going out of business because of a bully, nannystate, envirowhacko gov't is another thing.
-
Ontario's reduced the output of coal-based power plants by 70% over the last 7 years. It's definitely possible to do, and the environmental impacts, particularly with regards to CO2 emissions, are overwhelmingly worthwhile.
great see coal can work
-
How is it "whacko" to phase out coal as a fuel source? It's a massive contributor to greenhouse gases, smog, acid rain, and many negative health effects. Why would you use it when you could use anything else?
-
We have tons of coal and should be utilizing technology to get it, use it, and sell it.
and lets not forgot the entire communities that would become ghost towns if coal is not used..
the loss of jobs would be enormous , including the rails.
So you're only concerned about an enormous loss of jobs when it's coal?
Also, I'm pretty sure searching for a new source of energy would create at least as many jobs. Less dangerous and harmful ones, too.
-
How is it "whacko" to phase out coal as a fuel source? It's a massive contributor to greenhouse gases, smog, acid rain, and many negative health effects. Why would you use it when you could use anything else?
what are you going to use instead? coal is viable.
-
I would actually say put more effort into nuclear power and phase out coal.
-
We have tons of coal and should be utilizing technology to get it, use it, and sell it.
and lets not forgot the entire communities that would become ghost towns if coal is not used..
the loss of jobs would be enormous , including the rails.
So you're only concerned about an enormous loss of jobs when it's coal?
Also, I'm pretty sure searching for a new source of energy would create at least as many jobs. Less dangerous and harmful ones, too.
no.. Im saying Obama deals in hypocrisy... and Cap and Trade is a disaster
-
Oh. ok.
-
How is it "whacko" to phase out coal as a fuel source? It's a massive contributor to greenhouse gases, smog, acid rain, and many negative health effects. Why would you use it when you could use anything else?
If you can replace it with something cheaper and just as effective at producing energy (or even better production) then more power to you, but let the market create it. Someone will become very rich, and in the process, create jobs. Nuclear power is excellent. I'm a huge fan of Thorium... much safer than Uranium.
-
We seriously need to create more NPP, only this time use a standard design like a lot of European countries.
-
How is it "whacko" to phase out coal as a fuel source? It's a massive contributor to greenhouse gases, smog, acid rain, and many negative health effects. Why would you use it when you could use anything else?
what are you going to use instead? coal is viable.
Coal is not viable. It's a massive greenhouse gas emitter, it's inefficient, and it's dangerous. Nuclear is a far more attractive, safe, and efficient alternative. Wind and solar, to a lesser extent, are possible short-term alternatives as well. Hydroelectric is decent.
Ontario's on target to completely eliminate coal-fired power plants by 2014. That's 11 years to completely remove what was 25% of the province's energy production.
Also, during this process, profits for Ontario Power Generation have also increased significantly.
-
We seriously need to create more NPP, only this time use a standard design like a lot of European countries.
sounds good to me..we need it all.. coal, crude, oil, nuke. and we need the goverment out of it
-
How is it "whacko" to phase out coal as a fuel source? It's a massive contributor to greenhouse gases, smog, acid rain, and many negative health effects. Why would you use it when you could use anything else?
what are you going to use instead? coal is viable.
Coal is not viable. It's a massive greenhouse gas emitter, it's inefficient, and it's dangerous. Nuclear is a far more attractive, safe, and efficient alternative. Wind and solar, to a lesser extent, are possible short-term alternatives as well. Hydroelectric is decent.
Ontario's on target to completely eliminate coal-fired power plants by 2014. That's 11 years to completely remove what was 25% of the province's energy production.
Also, during this process, profits for Ontario Power Generation have also increased significantly.
we need it all... really.. coal has its place..
-
The free market doesn't care about the atmosphere, so I'd say the government most certainly has to be involved.
-
@EV
So, explain to me how we "need" coal. And for the love of god, don't just say that it's "viable" again.
-
The free market doesn't care about the atmosphere, so I'd say the government most certainly has to be involved.
Unfortunately yes
unless consumers opt for environmental-friendly energy sources which aren't as accesible atm and will very likely mean spending a bit more. (not very likely)
-
@EV
So, explain to me how we "need" coal. And for the love of god, don't just say that it's "viable" again.
Because parts of our country need it to to create electricity..and its an industry unto itself.
not unless you want to shut down electricity parts of the USA, we need it.
-
@EV
So, explain to me how we "need" coal. And for the love of god, don't just say that it's "viable" again.
Because parts of our country need it to to create electricity..and its an industry unto itself.
not unless you want to shut down electricity parts of the USA, we need it.
To be fair, you were asked to explain "how" we need coal, not just restating that we need it.
-
@EV
So, explain to me how we "need" coal. And for the love of god, don't just say that it's "viable" again.
Because parts of our country need it to to create electricity..and its an industry unto itself.
not unless you want to shut down electricity parts of the USA, we need it.
If Ontario can completely eliminate coal (previously providing 25% of its electricity) in 10 years, the United States, with all its wealth (not to mention the need for some public works projects in a recession) could presumably do the same with its electricity situation (coal accounts for 49% of electricity production). Hell, just loosening some of the insanely complicated regulations regarding nuclear power and encouraging private investment in it would go a looooooong way.
-
We don't need it to create electricity. I assure you there are other, better possible ways of doing so.
-
We don't need it to create electricity. I assure you there are other, better possible ways of doing so.
magic? because millions rely on it today
-
I don't think Seth is arguing for ending it immediately, more a gradual process. Plus, solar and wave have real possibilites for supplying energy without harming any eco-systems.
-
The problem with solar (and to a lesser extent, wind) is that they are stopgaps more than really viable long-term sources.
I wonder how much control the coal lobby has over Congress. I know that every time I see an ad for "clean coal" I want to send hate-mail to those deceiving bastards.
-
Solar and wind are not viable for large-scale power... too expensive and roomy.. you'd have to fill the state of Rhode Island to power a city like Austin, TX. You can, of course, put solar panels on your house to power it, but for $60k?! :eek When it's $6k I'll consider it. :)
Nuclear is the way to go. Use all the leftover coal to create diesel fuel for backup generators and our vehicles.
-
Actually, a country like Algeria could make fortunes selling energy to Europe. By just placing tons of panels all over the desert-
I do agree about nuclear though. For now it's definitely the best that we've got.
-
I don't think Seth is arguing for ending it immediately, more a gradual process. Plus, solar and wave have real possibilites for supplying energy without harming any eco-systems.
IM sure youre right.. dtismajesty is a verey nice guy...I just dont want to see society today have to pay so much for energy and Obama is pushing the rates on all enerrgy through the roof..
-
The problem is, in a consumer based nation such as ours, it doesn't matter how much energy you produce because people will just find reasons to use more.
There's a no-win situation in play here. If you remove every single roadblock and restriction to cheapen energy costs, the energy companies will run amok snatching every drop of oil and splitting every plutonium atom available, and we the consumers will still be paying top dollar for energy at the upper margin of availability.
Expensive electricity will suck, but no more than the crash and burn, self correction that you guys insist are necessary.
-
magic? because millions rely on it today
No. Unicorn blood.
-
magic? because millions rely on it today
No. Unicorn blood.
LOL LOL LOL... but you have to catch the unicorn first..thats kinda tricky!!!!
-
I have some of the lowest energy costs in the world. In large part because of capital commitment by the government to renewable energy.
-
I don't think Seth is arguing for ending it immediately, more a gradual process. Plus, solar and wave have real possibilites for supplying energy without harming any eco-systems.
IM sure youre right.. dtismajesty is a verey nice guy...I just dont want to see society today have to pay so much for energy and Obama is pushing the rates on all enerrgy through the roof..
It's either now, or in the future. Because at some point, not even in a very distant future, all the coal and oil will have been used. What do we do then? Sure, none of us will be alive - but do you have any concern for the future of civilisation? :lol
-
I don't think Seth is arguing for ending it immediately, more a gradual process. Plus, solar and wave have real possibilites for supplying energy without harming any eco-systems.
IM sure youre right.. dtismajesty is a verey nice guy...I just dont want to see society today have to pay so much for energy and Obama is pushing the rates on all enerrgy through the roof..
It's either now, or in the future. Because at some point, not even in a very distant future, all the coal and oil will have been used. What do we do then? Sure, none of us will be alive - but do you have any concern for the future of civilisation? :lol
Actually we will be. Oil in around 30-40 years, natural gas in around 50-60. Coal will be around a whopping 200 more years, but I'm not sure you wanna drive a coal-powered car.
-
LOL :rollin :rollin we have 3 fucking centuries of oil left (at current demand).
-
LOL :rollin :rollin we have 3 fucking centuries of oil left (at current demand).
Oh you.
https://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/04/16/u-s-military-warns-of-oil-shortage-as-early-as-2015/
-
Sure. And if we're willing to build nuclear reactors to power the drilling operations, like the Canadians are having to do, then we might be able to use some of it.
All the oil in the world is irrelevant as soon as what's left requires more energy to extract than it's capable of producing.
-
Sure. And if we're willing to build nuclear reactors to power the drilling operations, like the Canadians are having to do, then we might be able to use some of it.
All the oil in the world is irrelevant as soon as what's left requires more energy to extract than it's capable of producing.
Which is why I'd love it if alternative energy schemes starting coming into form soon.
Oh yeah, and Praxis, at current demand. In ten years or so demand as it stands today will account for maybe around half of world demand, thanks for the rise of developing countries India, China, and the like.
-
LOL :rollin :rollin we have 3 fucking centuries of oil left (at current demand).
That part in paranthesis is hugely important.
-
LOL :rollin :rollin we have 3 fucking centuries of oil left (at current demand).
That part in paranthesis is hugely important.
And again, even that doesn't quite do it. I've been taking a class on environmental problems just like and including this one; 50-60 years on current demand, projected 30-40 years with a rise in demand from the usual suspects.
-
LOL :rollin :rollin we have 3 fucking centuries of oil left (at current demand).
That part in paranthesis is hugely important.
The gov't (through military) will make sure we take all that oil and we'll have plenty, so I'm not worried.
-
So are you a libertarian, or you just one of those people (like Bush and Obama) who believe in arbitrarily attacking countries so that we can steal their oil? Because, you know, that hasn't been going great for this nation's finances either.
-
So are you a libertarian, or you just one of those people (like Bush and Obama) who believe in arbitrarily attacking countries so that we can steal their oil? Because, you know, that hasn't been going great for this nation's finances either.
I hate that our country meddles, but it's unavoidable. I believe in peace through trade. When you have the most powerful military in the world, you tend to use it for anything but peace. ???
-
YES!
-
So are you a libertarian, or you just one of those people (like Bush and Obama) who believe in arbitrarily attacking countries so that we can steal their oil? Because, you know, that hasn't been going great for this nation's finances either.
I hate that our country meddles, but it's unavoidable. I believe in peace through trade. When you have the most powerful military in the world, you tend to use it for anything but peace. ???
That doesn't at all explain the barbarism you just expressed here:
LOL :rollin :rollin we have 3 fucking centuries of oil left (at current demand).
That part in paranthesis is hugely important.
The gov't (through military) will make sure we take all that oil and we'll have plenty, so I'm not worried.
-
Sure it does. We're going to meddle despite objections by citizens against these military installations. Am I going to stop using oil and sell my SUV? Probably not, since we won't run out of oil in my lifetime.
-
So what are you saying? You support the US meddling in these affairs because you like driving your SUV (ew, btw, you're not nearly as cool for doing that as you think, especially in (double ew) jersey), or you just can't wait to benefit via the coincidence that no politician has the balls to make it stop?
-
I don't support meddling, but my rants against it won't stop the meddling. I just like bragging about my a luxury SUV.. best vehicle I've ever owned. Plus, I'll be moving to TX soon, so I won't have to worry about any domestic oil shortage. :)
-
Well, there you have it guys:
Here's another example of, when it comes down to it, a libertarian whose willing to forsake the non-interventionist policies supposedly at his ideologies core as long as he doesn't think it'll effect his immediate well-being.
-
Moving to a state that produces/refines fuel domestically makes me an interventionist? ::)
-
So what are you saying? You support the US meddling in these affairs because you like driving your SUV (ew, btw, you're not nearly as cool for doing that as you think, especially in (double ew) jersey), or you just can't wait to benefit via the coincidence that no politician has the balls to make it stop?
whats wrong with Jrz? and having an SUV ..?
-
Yeah PC, I think you're misunderstanding him; I'm pretty sure he was just saying that the gov't getting the oil is inevitable, not that he supports it.
I don't support meddling, but my rants against it won't stop the meddling.
-
So what are you saying? You support the US meddling in these affairs because you like driving your SUV (ew, btw, you're not nearly as cool for doing that as you think, especially in (double ew) jersey), or you just can't wait to benefit via the coincidence that no politician has the balls to make it stop?
whats wrong with Jrz? and having an SUV ..?
NJ sucks. At least it's close to NYC. ;D
-
So what are you saying? You support the US meddling in these affairs because you like driving your SUV (ew, btw, you're not nearly as cool for doing that as you think, especially in (double ew) jersey), or you just can't wait to benefit via the coincidence that no politician has the balls to make it stop?
whats wrong with Jrz? and having an SUV ..?
NJ sucks. At least it's close to NYC. ;D
I love my State.. love it, all but the taxes.
-
Moving to a state that produces/refines fuel domestically makes me an interventionist? ::)
No, you just don't seem concerned about intervention at all as long as it means you can drive your SUV. If I've got them wrong, then forget it. My grandparents are from Jersey too. I love them, even though they're from Jersey and also drive a huge RV and having similar politics as yours. So it's nothing personal.
So what are you saying? You support the US meddling in these affairs because you like driving your SUV (ew, btw, you're not nearly as cool for doing that as you think, especially in (double ew) jersey), or you just can't wait to benefit via the coincidence that no politician has the balls to make it stop?
whats wrong with Jrz? and having an SUV ..?
NJ sucks. At least it's close to NYC. ;D
Yes, one of its few redeeming qualities.
-
Moving to a state that produces/refines fuel domestically makes me an interventionist? ::)
No, you just don't seem concerned about intervention at all as long as it means you can drive your SUV. If I've got them wrong, then forget it. My grandparents are from Jersey too. I love them, even though they're from Jersey and also drive a huge RV and having similar politics as yours. So it's nothing personal.
So what are you saying? You support the US meddling in these affairs because you like driving your SUV (ew, btw, you're not nearly as cool for doing that as you think, especially in (double ew) jersey), or you just can't wait to benefit via the coincidence that no politician has the balls to make it stop?
whats wrong with Jrz? and having an SUV ..?
NJ sucks. At least it's close to NYC. ;D
Yes, one of its few redeeming qualities.
HUH? have you lived in NJ?
-
Yeah PC, I think you're misunderstanding him; I'm pretty sure he was just saying that the gov't getting the oil is inevitable, not that he supports it.
I don't support meddling, but my rants against it won't stop the meddling.
All good and well, but the only meddling he's ranted against is totally unrelated to taking oil from other countries via military action.
-
here is one, so Obama mocks the Ryan Plan, mocks Ryan opnely to "sit up fron when he Obama speaks" like hea is a stupid pupil in the classroom of Obama..But WAIT, Factcheck say Obam lied over and over about the Ryan plan...what a classless dope Obama is, maybe Ryan can get Obama to sit in the front row when Ryan speaks
https://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2011/04/factcheck-org-obama-repeatedly-lied-in-critique-of-ryan-plan/
-
Holy shit. A politician misrepresenting an opponents plan! What a dark day for America.
-
Holy shit. A politician misrepresenting an opponents plan! What a dark day for America.
I hear ya.. but the thick condenscending tone from Obama is too much, and then to be such a liar about Ryans plan after treating Ryan like a child is really just nausiating, as Obama flushes The American Dream down the toilet.
-
Holy shit. A politician misrepresenting an opponents plan! What a dark day for America.
Yeah, I can't believe the attention this story is getting. It started off as "Obama's a Muslim," "Obama's the antichrist," "Obama's not a US citizen," etc etc., and since all of those bogus claims fell straight to the intellectual gutter now it's become the far-less ambitious "Obama's kinda a nasty guy sometimes."
-
Holy shit. A politician misrepresenting an opponents plan! What a dark day for America.
Yeah, I can't believe the attention this story is getting. It started off as "Obama's a Muslim," "Obama's the antichrist," "Obama's not a US citizen," etc etc., and since all of those bogus claims fell straight to the intellectual gutter now it's become the far-less ambitious "Obama's kinda a nasty guy sometimes."
I like to sum it up this way "Obama is a flat out fraud, sold to us by George Soros" Im just happy for the first time in her adult life Michelle Obama is proud of America" because if McCain had won, she would never have been proud of America...
-
As opposed to the one sold to us by Tom Hicks.
Your problem, EV, is that you lump all of this onto Obama without realizing that the problem is actually ANYBODY crooked enough to hold that office.
-
WTF does George Soros have to do with any of this?
-
As opposed to the one sold to us by Tom Hicks.
Your problem, EV, is that you lump all of this onto Obama without realizing that the problem is actually ANYBODY crooked enough to hold that office.
I understand your point, but in all sincerity, Obama broke this system wide open, and the medias complicity with how he got elected with such poor vetting . Soros is a very dangerous person to the USA
-
This system's been broken for 30 years. Honestly, I'd consider the final blow to be Karl Rove's politics of division. Still, the last five presidents have been the same guy. Occasionally more intellectual or more trigger-happy, but the same guy nevertheless. The difference here is that I recognize that, and you think 3 of them were great and two of them were evil.
-
This system's been broken for 30 years. Honestly, I'd consider the final blow to be Karl Rove's politics of division. Still, the last five presidents have been the same guy. Occasionally more intellectual or more trigger-happy, but the same guy nevertheless. The difference here is that I recognize that, and you think 3 of them were great and two of them were evil.
Ive heard that agrument before and I know many feel like you do, so I get the point. I just dont agree.
can you espound about your issue with Karl? as we today have never seent he USA more divided then under the great UNITER Obama.. under GWB the country was much more united, Clinton hurt himself..
-
Wow. You've clearly been living under a rock the past few years.
I wonder who's doing more to divide the country.... It couldn't possibly be the GOP congress, determined to say NO to anything the Democrats say.
Obama, on the other hand, has tried repeatedly to compromise with them
Or have you been ignoring that?
-
can you espound about your issue with Karl? as we today have never seent he USA more divided then under the great UNITER Obama.. under GWB the country was much more united, Clinton hurt himself..
You might be correct about being more divided now; I'm not sure. What I am sure of is that it's a trend that really started rolling with Rove. So while we might be more divided now, and we certainly will be more divided under the next president, it started 13 years ago. For that reason, I don't blame Obama. Consider it a snowball, and Rove was the one who started it rolling.
-
Wow. You've clearly been living under a rock the past few years.
I wonder who's doing more to divide the country.... It couldn't possibly be the GOP congress, determined to say NO to anything the Democrats say.
Obama, on the other hand, has tried repeatedly to compromise with them
Or have you been ignoring that?
Thats simply just not true....Obama locked the GOP out of debate when Pelosi had control... remember the old obama quote " we won they need to now sit in the back of the bus"
yea Obama really was a uniter on Healthcare...that he passed at 4am with dem majority
and wheres Obamas budget?
-
can you espound about your issue with Karl? as we today have never seent he USA more divided then under the great UNITER Obama.. under GWB the country was much more united, Clinton hurt himself..
You might be correct about being more divided now; I'm not sure. What I am sure of is that it's a trend that really started rolling with Rove. So while we might be more divided now, and we certainly will be more divided under the next president, it started 13 years ago. For that reason, I don't blame Obama. Consider it a snowball, and Rove was the one who started it rolling.
all polls show the coutnry at its most divided, wtih Helathcare and Obama class warfare being the two biggest contributers..
EB, can you point me to anything that subject about Karl, when you can bro..Ive honeslty never heard of him being the isssue
-
Obama class warfare :rollin
I hadn't been reading the news recently. Is there a proletarian uprising in the States at the moment?
-
Obama class warfare :rollin
I hadn't been reading the news recently. Is there a proletarian uprising in the States at the moment?
Yes.. he deals in Class Warefare all the time ...every day
-
I wonder who's doing more to divide the country.... It couldn't possibly be the GOP congress, determined to say NO to anything the Democrats say.
They're equally responsible. The Dems are pulling the same shit now with regard to budget cuts. Neither party has a shred of integrity, it's just a bunch of incompetent self-righteous ideologues.
If you think the Dems are any better than the GOP, you and epicview are living under the same rock. :biggrin:
-J
-
Wow. You've clearly been living under a rock the past few years.
I wonder who's doing more to divide the country.... It couldn't possibly be the GOP congress, determined to say NO to anything the Democrats say.
Obama, on the other hand, has tried repeatedly to compromise with them
Or have you been ignoring that?
point me to examples as you say he "repeatedly" has... so I cant wait for the myriad of examples...the floor is yours
-
It's not really in either party's interest to compromise. It's not a GOP problem or a Democrat problem. It's a systemic problem.
-
It's not really in either party's interest to compromise. It's not a GOP problem or a Democrat problem. It's a systemic problem.
in a macro sense you could say that and to some extent it could be true
-
I wonder who's doing more to divide the country.... It couldn't possibly be the GOP congress, determined to say NO to anything the Democrats say.
They're equally responsible. The Dems are pulling the same shit now with regard to budget cuts. Neither party has a shred of integrity, it's just a bunch of incompetent self-righteous ideologues.
If you think the Dems are any better than the GOP, you and epicview are living under the same rock. :biggrin:
-J
They all do it, yes. However, the GOP got REALLY good at doing that stuff and making it work for them somehow.
-
Obama only knows how to attack the wealthy because he's an agitator. He's never held a real job before in his life. It's not even wealth envy he's pandering to, it's achievement envy.
I find the 'tax the rich' stuff entertaining. He could confiscate all wealth above $200k and still be $400+ billion short of just covering THIS year's spending.
Next he'll attack the oil companies for their "obscene" profits.. yet will make no mention of their ~9% profit margin and the fact that state/federal governments make more in revenue than oil companies after taxes and business expenses... now the EPA (how do they have the authority?) is telling Shell they can't drill for oil... more jobs lost thanks to this economic jihadist.
-
Obama only knows how to attack the wealthy because he's an agitator. He's never held a real job before in his life. It's not even wealth envy he's pandering to, it's achievement envy.
I find the 'tax the rich' stuff entertaining. He could confiscate all wealth above $200k and still be $400+ billion short of just covering THIS year's spending.
Next he'll attack the oil companies for their "obscene" profits.. yet will make no mention of their ~9% profit margin and the fact that state/federal governments make more in revenue than oil companies after taxes and business expenses... now the EPA (how do they have the authority?) is telling Shell they can't drill for oil... more jobs lost thanks to this economic jihadist.
well said Praxis.!!
-
Obama only knows how to attack the wealthy because he's an agitator. He's never held a real job before in his life. It's not even wealth envy he's pandering to, it's achievement envy.
Never held a real job in his life? Really?
sigh..
-
I'm in the mood to make some money.
I bet 6000 dollars that this conversation goes completely nowhere. Anybody want to take me up on that?
-
Obama only knows how to attack the wealthy because he's an agitator. He's never held a real job before in his life. It's not even wealth envy he's pandering to, it's achievement envy.
Never held a real job in his life? Really?
sigh..
what was his real job?
-
Obama only knows how to attack the wealthy because he's an agitator. He's never held a real job before in his life. It's not even wealth envy he's pandering to, it's achievement envy.
Never held a real job in his life? Really?
sigh..
what was his real job?
Wait, he wrote a newsletter for some firm for a year.. the firm was a CIA front though, but probably unrelated to his work.
-
Lets see...Obama wouldnt even meet with Jindal for weeks after the Gulf Spill...and didnt invite Jan Brewer to the caucus on the border last week..
thats how you divide a country
-
Obama only knows how to attack the wealthy because he's an agitator. He's never held a real job before in his life. It's not even wealth envy he's pandering to, it's achievement envy.
Never held a real job in his life? Really?
sigh..
what was his real job?
Wait, he wrote a newsletter for some firm for a year.. the firm was a CIA front though, but probably unrelated to his work.
Praxis ...I remember his real job...he wrote books on himself... LOL LOL LOL
-
Obama only knows how to attack the wealthy because he's an agitator. He's never held a real job before in his life. It's not even wealth envy he's pandering to, it's achievement envy.
Never held a real job in his life? Really?
sigh..
what was his real job?
Wait, he wrote a newsletter for some firm for a year.. the firm was a CIA front though, but probably unrelated to his work.
Praxis ...I remember his real job...he wrote books on himself... LOL LOL LOL
That terrorist Ayers admitted to ghost writing one of his books.
-
Obama only knows how to attack the wealthy because he's an agitator. He's never held a real job before in his life. It's not even wealth envy he's pandering to, it's achievement envy.
Never held a real job in his life? Really?
sigh..
what was his real job?
Wait, he wrote a newsletter for some firm for a year.. the firm was a CIA front though, but probably unrelated to his work.
Praxis ...I remember his real job...he wrote books on himself... LOL LOL LOL
That terrorist Ayers admitted to ghost writing one of his books.
good point... but dont ever question Obamas integrity and wisdom...LOL LOL LOL
-
The way you divide a country is you turn every single issue into a straight, binary issue and tell the people to choose good vs. evil. As I said the other day, in modern politics every decision a president makes is viewed simultaneously as a huge and important triumph and a catastrophic failure that forewarns the end days. Most issues have pros and cons with plenty of gray in between, but that gray costs you elections in an environment where the voters only want the simplest choices with no cause for thought.
And this, by the way, was Rove's single greatest contribution to America. He certainly didn't invent the strategy, but he mastered it to a degree that would have given any Roman serious wood.
-
The way you divide a country is you turn every single issue into a straight, binary issue and tell the people to choose good vs. evil. As I said the other day, in modern politics every decision a president makes is viewed simultaneously as a huge and important triumph and a catastrophic failure that forewarns the end days. Most issues have pros and cons with plenty of gray in between, but that gray costs you elections in an environment where the voters only want the simplest choices with no cause for thought.
And this, by the way, was Rove's single greatest contribution to America. He certainly didn't invent the strategy, but he mastered it to a degree that would have given any Roman serious wood.
good points in there...but I still dont see how karl is anywhere in this discussion, GWB won by uniting..certinaly never did anything otherwise, or he would not have won twice..thats my confusion
-
And sadly, you never will. Anybody who can look objectively at the first Bush term will see what I described everywhere.
And some of us would say that he got elected once, not twice.
-
And sadly, you never will. Anybody who can look objectively at the first Bush term will see what I described everywhere.
And some of us would say that he got elected once, not twice.
Im confused...9 months into his first term 9/11 happened. Bush did nothing but unite and protect us, and start the HSA, which broke up multiple terrorist plots and busted the oil for food bank slush funds. how did Karl rove effect that? unless we are going to go down the Loose Change, Code Pink(o) BS that GWB was slandered with.
-
WTF does George Soros have to do with any of this?
are you joking? you do know who you voted for and who bank rolled him..correct? this proves my points on Obama supporters
why do you keep doubting me??...and Im still waiting for your proof of the great out reach to the GOP you claim Obama makes a few posts back.
and please tell me Obama's real jobs that you claim he has had?
but you blast me as "living under a rock"...I dont get it???
-
And sadly, you never will. Anybody who can look objectively at the first Bush term will see what I described everywhere.
And some of us would say that he got elected once, not twice.
Im confused...9 months into his first term 9/11 happened. Bush did nothing but unite and protect us, and start the HSA, which broke up multiple terrorist plots and busted the oil for food bank slush funds. how did Karl rove effect that? unless we are going to go down the Loose Change, Code Pink(o) BS that GWB was slandered with.
LOL
-
And sadly, you never will. Anybody who can look objectively at the first Bush term will see what I described everywhere.
And some of us would say that he got elected once, not twice.
Im confused...9 months into his first term 9/11 happened. Bush did nothing but unite and protect us, and start the HSA, which broke up multiple terrorist plots and busted the oil for food bank slush funds. how did Karl rove effect that? unless we are going to go down the Loose Change, Code Pink(o) BS that GWB was slandered with.
LOL
whats funny?
-
Where have all the war protestors gone since Obama came into office? You'd think extending Bush's wars and adding a third in Libya would bring them out to the protests... unless they're the same ones being bussed around to the union protests in the mid-west. XD
-
Where have all the war protestors gone since Obama came into office? You'd think extending Bush's wars and adding a third in Libya would bring them out to the protests... unless they're the same ones being bussed around to the union protests in the mid-west. XD
Good point..they were phonies on Soros's payroll..it was part of tearing down of the American fabric to get Obama in. part of how the stealth jihad works...
saul alinsky tactics abound
-
Where have all the war protestors gone since Obama came into office? You'd think extending Bush's wars and adding a third in Libya would bring them out to the protests... unless they're the same ones being bussed around to the union protests in the mid-west. XD
Good point..they were phonies on Soros's payroll..it was part of tearing down of the American fabric to get Obama in. part of how the stealth jihad works...
saul alinsky tactics abound
No, it's just that, unfortunately, the Dems who made a fuss about Bush's foreign policy are going to keep quiet because it's one of them in the White House now and it's not in their interest to go after Obama. It's part of the Washington game, not some crazy George Soros conspiracy.
-
The way you divide a country is you turn every single issue into a straight, binary issue and tell the people to choose good vs. evil.
+1
there's too much political ideology involved in things these days. If both parties worked together to solve each problem in a down to earth way, and without arguing any specific political doctrine, alot more would get done.
-
Where have all the war protestors gone since Obama came into office? You'd think extending Bush's wars and adding a third in Libya would bring them out to the protests... unless they're the same ones being bussed around to the union protests in the mid-west. XD
Good point..they were phonies on Soros's payroll..it was part of tearing down of the American fabric to get Obama in. part of how the stealth jihad works...
saul alinsky tactics abound
No, it's just that, unfortunately, the Dems who made a fuss about Bush's foreign policy are going to keep quiet because it's one of them in the White House now and it's not in their interest to go after Obama. It's part of the Washington game, not some crazy George Soros conspiracy.
AG, no its the funding..and that Obama is made by Soros, its all linked, that why they dont protest Obama..
-
The way you divide a country is you turn every single issue into a straight, binary issue and tell the people to choose good vs. evil.
+1
there's too much political ideology involved in things these days. If both parties worked together to solve each problem in a down to earth way, and without arguing any specific political doctrine, alot more would get done.
Obama is a pupil of Sauil Alinsky... Obama deals in demonizing the GOP..its a simple "rules for Radicals"tactic he was TAUGHT and that he even TAUGHT!!!
-
How do the Obama supporters here feel he got the money to unseat Hillary for the Dem nomination? it had to be a huge amount of money ..correct?
-
wait wat
-
wait wat
whats up Sigz? is the question not clear? I clarified it a bit now
-
even im shocked on this..Obama is back following another Rev Wright type? let me guess..he didnt know..LOL
and No Easter message? thats odd...but he gave out lots of Muslim messages of Holiday wishes..I just cant get my head around all this..it never stops with the guy Obama..
https://www.wrno.com/pages/Morning_Show.html?article=8479610#ixzz1KXnkUGHE
-
Where have all the war protestors gone since Obama came into office? You'd think extending Bush's wars and adding a third in Libya would bring them out to the protests... unless they're the same ones being bussed around to the union protests in the mid-west. XD
Good point..they were phonies on Soros's payroll..it was part of tearing down of the American fabric to get Obama in. part of how the stealth jihad works...
saul alinsky tactics abound
No, it's just that, unfortunately, the Dems who made a fuss about Bush's foreign policy are going to keep quiet because it's one of them in the White House now and it's not in their interest to go after Obama. It's part of the Washington game, not some crazy George Soros conspiracy.
AG, no its the funding..and that Obama is made by Soros, its all linked, that why they dont protest Obama..
No, it just makes no political sense for them to do so.
-
Where have all the war protestors gone since Obama came into office? You'd think extending Bush's wars and adding a third in Libya would bring them out to the protests... unless they're the same ones being bussed around to the union protests in the mid-west. XD
Good point..they were phonies on Soros's payroll..it was part of tearing down of the American fabric to get Obama in. part of how the stealth jihad works...
saul alinsky tactics abound
No, it's just that, unfortunately, the Dems who made a fuss about Bush's foreign policy are going to keep quiet because it's one of them in the White House now and it's not in their interest to go after Obama. It's part of the Washington game, not some crazy George Soros conspiracy.
AG, no its the funding..and that Obama is made by Soros, its all linked, that why they dont protest Obama..
No, it just makes no political sense for them to do so.
find out about the funding of Code Pink, id link you to it, but then it will be considered biased..LOL
-
Mods....can you please lock my thread? It has turned into another Obamaistheantichristwankfest.
-
How do the Obama supporters here feel he got the money to unseat Hillary for the Dem nomination? it had to be a huge amount of money ..correct?
The same way all politicians raise money to run for office. Being beholden to special interests isn't a new thing, and it's something that most of us have been bitching about since long before Obama got elected. For some reason, you seem to think it's a new phenomenon and that all republican presidents went out and raised their campaign funds by mowing lawns or something, rather than raking it in by the billions from people buying influence. You can complain about this guy Soros all you want, but he's just one of thousands, some who support democrats, some who support republicans, and plenty who hedge their bets and support both.
-
I feel like EV would be more at home in the comments section of FOX news articles, at least based on the content and format of his posts.
-
EB,
I think it dovetails into and against your view "all the candidates are the same" my point being to SPLIT the dem party and have enough money to unseat Hillary took a lot of cash..and Soros to all in the know was the one that put Obama over the top in fund raising..to unseat the Clinton machine was a scarey feat, and came out of left field,... my issue is Soros is not a good guy at all. and no fan of the USA, why would he put so much money into defeating Clinton ( if they are all the same?) and get the BILLIONS needed to defeat a viable dem candidate and woman in Hillary..
-
I feel like EV would be more at home in the comments section of FOX news articles, at least based on the content and format of his posts.
I like differing views and opionion to have these debates...who wants all the same? sure I could go on GOP sites and just read.. and many hear could just go on say the Huffington Post etc..but isnt it more fun to push ourselves to think and explore??
-
EB,
I think it dovetails into and against your view "all the candidates are the same" my point being to SPLIT the dem party and have enough money to unseat Hillary took a lot of cash..and Soros to all in the know was the one that put Obama over the top in fund raising..to unseat the Clinton machine was a scarey feat, and came out of left field,... my issue is Soros is not a good guy at all. and no fan of the USA, why would he put so much money into defeating Clinton ( if they are all the same?) and get the BILLIONS needed to defeat a viable dem candidate and woman in Hillary..
What the fuck do you not understand about my post? Show some respect and get back on topic, or stop posting in the thread.
If you want to rant about funding conspiracies, then start your own thread. Jesus, its like youre a fucking shark....as soon as you tast obamabashing blood, your eyes roll back in your head and you dont stop thrashing around until youre banned.
-
EB,
I think it dovetails into and against your view "all the candidates are the same" my point being to SPLIT the dem party and have enough money to unseat Hillary took a lot of cash..and Soros to all in the know was the one that put Obama over the top in fund raising..to unseat the Clinton machine was a scarey feat, and came out of left field,... my issue is Soros is not a good guy at all. and no fan of the USA, why would he put so much money into defeating Clinton ( if they are all the same?) and get the BILLIONS needed to defeat a viable dem candidate and woman in Hillary..
What the fuck do you not understand about my post? Show some respect and get back on topic, or stop posting in the thread.
If you want to rant about funding conspiracies, then start your own thread. Jesus, its like youre a fucking shark....as soon as you tast obamabashing blood, your eyes roll back in your head and you dont stop thrashing around until youre banned.
calm down...The guys is the President..its all current events.. fine I will make another thread...no need to be soo hostile, your Thread title says "Obama"...sorry it lends to some curves in the road..
-
eric, calm down
EV, with all due respect, it doesn't look like you've really read the OP. He wanted to know what you would do differently. Thus far you've failed to do that; you've only railed on what horrible things Obama and other unrelated conspiracies
-
eric, calm down
EV, with all due respect, it doesn't look like you've really read the OP. He wanted to know what you would do differently. Thus far you've failed to do that; you've only railed on what horrible things Obama and other unrelated conspiracies
and I asked you to follow up on your slamming of my views with some back up..but heck Im good, PLM if you would like we can discuss it in my thread..all Obama subjects are welcome my friend..
I gotta admit Im tired of the cursing at me..there is no need for it...Im a nice dude..and always show respect to all here, Im enjoying the subject, we all go off subject at times. geeeeeeeeeez, but thank you PLM for calming this down...I appreciate ..the bigger issue is how we all treat each other..so thank you
-
Where have all the war protestors gone since Obama came into office? You'd think extending Bush's wars and adding a third in Libya would bring them out to the protests... unless they're the same ones being bussed around to the union protests in the mid-west. XD
What have they been up to? You're going to regret asking that question.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUJYu6gtGW4
Warning: this might be the worst video of any kind I have ever watched to completion.
-J
-
Where have all the war protestors gone since Obama came into office? You'd think extending Bush's wars and adding a third in Libya would bring them out to the protests... unless they're the same ones being bussed around to the union protests in the mid-west. XD
What have they been up to? You're going to regret asking that question.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUJYu6gtGW4
Warning: this might be the worst video of any kind I have ever watched to completion.
-J
o_0
-
Also back to this "Obama divides America". Lololol. The republicans have been attacking him on EVERYTHING, just because it's from Obama (and often, rightfully so). Obama hasn't stood strong but has caved on multiple occasions, watering down the healthcare bill etc. Not that I support Obama, but he got elected for a certain reason and he hasn't fulfilled nearly anything of what he promised - he should be true to his voters at least...
And he had what, 57 or 58 dems? He doesn't even need 60. RECONCILIATION!! Bush used it all of the time... they weren't even close to 60 senators at one point during the Bush-Cheney admin
-
Oh god. Another thread where we talk about how all the democrats ever were evil, all the Republicans ever were heroes, Obama's ruined the nation, etc... How can I contribute to this?
OK, let's see...
UNCLE ODINGO1111111
-
stop it pc. we don't need to antagonize anybody
-
The hell? It's true! You've said it yourself:
eric, calm down
EV, with all due respect, it doesn't look like you've really read the OP. He wanted to know what you would do differently. Thus far you've failed to do that; you've only railed on what horrible things Obama and other unrelated conspiracies
I'm not cursing at anybody. I'm simply lamenting how stupid the last page or so of "discourse" here is. This board is going to shit fast, not because of the regulars, but because lately every single thread has been about the same thing, which is, perhaps by coincidence, whatever bizarre claim Epicview has wanted to make about Obama in relation to X issue.
-
Where have all the war protestors gone since Obama came into office? You'd think extending Bush's wars and adding a third in Libya would bring them out to the protests... unless they're the same ones being bussed around to the union protests in the mid-west. XD
Good point..they were phonies on Soros's payroll..it was part of tearing down of the American fabric to get Obama in. part of how the stealth jihad works...
saul alinsky tactics abound
No, it's just that, unfortunately, the Dems who made a fuss about Bush's foreign policy are going to keep quiet because it's one of them in the White House now and it's not in their interest to go after Obama. It's part of the Washington game, not some crazy George Soros conspiracy.
It also helps that this time, the U.S. went in with U.N. approval, and indeed U.N. insistence, something the Iraq War was mysteriously lacking.
-
Where have all the war protestors gone since Obama came into office? You'd think extending Bush's wars and adding a third in Libya would bring them out to the protests... unless they're the same ones being bussed around to the union protests in the mid-west. XD
Good point..they were phonies on Soros's payroll..it was part of tearing down of the American fabric to get Obama in. part of how the stealth jihad works...
saul alinsky tactics abound
No, it's just that, unfortunately, the Dems who made a fuss about Bush's foreign policy are going to keep quiet because it's one of them in the White House now and it's not in their interest to go after Obama. It's part of the Washington game, not some crazy George Soros conspiracy.
It also helps that this time, the U.S. went in with U.N. approval, and indeed U.N. insistence, something the Iraq War was mysteriously lacking.
You have that backwards, Obama bipassed congress and the Iraq war was 100% legal, and we had a much larger coalition in Iraq, and 17 broken UN resolution, and El Bariedai was exposed.
-
wut
-
wut
+1
?
-
Don't see how that was confusing, but he was saying that the Iraq war was more legal and justifiable than Libya. He's wrong, but they were valid points to make.
-
Oh, I know it was clear.
-
Don't see how that was confusing, but he was saying that the Iraq war was more legal and justifiable than Libya. He's wrong, but they were valid points to make.
I'm not sure how they would be valid and wrong?
Also I asked this in another thread I think and no one answered me: what are the credentials for a war to be legal? Is it U.N. peacekeeping approval or something like that? A multilateral military force?
-
I don't recall the exact context, but I was probably suggesting that it was a perfectly reasonable thing for him to believe, I just disagree with it.
-
Obama didn't seek the congress' approval for Libya... or did he? Idk, that may be what EV is talking about.
-
It was a UN thing. AFAIK, the Iraq war had neither Congressional nor UN approval
-
I believe the Iraq war had Congressional approval. Whether or not their was UN approval is a matter of debate. Libya had UN approval, but Obama never ran it by Congress first (who probably would have gone along with it anyway).
With regards to Congress: Technically, I'm not sure how much the Congressional thing really matters since we've pretty much abandoned the notion of a formal declaration of war. We weren't technically at war with Korea, Vietnam, Iraq either time, or anybody else we've fought since WWII. It has become customary to get congressional approval for "police actions", but I don't know if it's actually required. Like everything else in Washington, it honestly depends on who's in power and who's complaining. .
As for the UN: (like anybody really gives a shit). The legality of a war has a lot to do with whether or not it would constitute a war crime. In this instance, the US is pretty much in line with international law. The Afghan war, probably, as one could articulate a threat from the large AQ presence. Iraq is a pretty big question mark. As I understand it, for a war to be lawful there has to be approval form the UN or an imminent threat. Barring that, it would be considered a war of aggression and therefore a war crime. The nutshell version as I understand it is that the UN issued a laundry list of resolutions pertaining to Iraq after Gulf War I. These were specific to maintaining peace in the region. Colin Powell's waving around of that anthrax vial was the precursor to UN 1441, which basically said that Iraq was in violation of the earlier resolutions and constituted a breech of the peace. However, the consensus appears to be that 1441 did not authorized a use of force. Presumably, another resolution would have been called for specifically authorizing military action. Dumbass's justifications were that Iraq was not in compliance with the UN and that automatically authorized military intervention, and, that the provisions of the 1990 resolutions which he was in violation of also allowed for that intervention. There is a legal rationale behind it, it's not something they just pulled out of their ass, but the opinion seems to be that if it were questioned in international court, the invasion would have been considered unlawful. The 1990 resolutions were likely confined to the resolution to GWI, and 1441 didn't designate the US as the enforcer of any provisions. Basically he had a legal leg to stand on, but it was really wobbly.
Honestly, SnakeEyes probably has a better understanding of W's justification under the UN. I'd be curious to here the pro-Bush side from a true-believer.
-
I think the idea on the pro-Bush side is that since Saddam Hussein had violated certain UN resolutions, that made any action against him legit, whether there was UN approval or not...
Whatever the case, I personally don't believe in the UN, so to me it's wrong no matter what side you come from. It's kind of weird - a lot of the neocons would cite Saddam's violation of UN measures as justification, yet at the same time they scoff at the UN as an obstacle to our unilateralism.
-
Part of my concern is that we're pretty quick to wave Hague and Geneva around in people's faces when we feel like we've been wronged, but those sorts of things never apply to anything we do wrong. In this case, there's a very strong possibility that invading Iraq was about as lawful as Saddam invading Kuwait.
-
I only have a minute to reply to this right now, but I'll try to come back and read through the thread and give a more in depth response (since El Barto mentiond my name).
From what I understand, Bush DID get congressional approval as evidenced by the Iraq War Resolution. They gave the President the "right" to invade Iraq if he made a "determination" that Iraq was a threat to the security of the United States. In the beginning of the Iraq War Resolution, there's a laundry list of things that Saddam did that was used as evidence of Saddam being a threat to the U.S., including the assassination attempt on former President Bush (the father), shooting at U.S. plans in no-fly zones and paying suicide bombers to attack Israel, which is a friend of the U.S. There were other reasons, too, I just can't remember them. So, that's the U.S. side of things as far as "permission" goes.
Concerning the U.N., if I remember correctly, the Security Council did NOT give Bush permission to invade Iraq. Supporters of Bush, like myself, however, point out that a lot of the members of the Security Council were being bribed by Saddam Hussein through the Oil for Food program, which led to them not supporting Bush invading Iraq because then their shady dealings would have been uncovered (which they, embarassingly for these countries, were exposed).
With Obama, I believe it's the opposite: he didn't get Congressional approval for Libya, but didn't ask for it, but DID get U.N. approval. Dennis Kucinich said he and most other Democrats would have voted against it, anyway, so Obama probably knew that and bypassed Congress for that reason.
-
I only have a minute to reply to this right now, but I'll try to come back and read through the thread and give a more in depth response (since El Barto mentiond my name).
From what I understand, Bush DID get congressional approval as evidenced by the Iraq War Resolution. They gave the President the "right" to invade Iraq if he made a "determination" that Iraq was a threat to the security of the United States. In the beginning of the Iraq War Resolution, there's a laundry list of things that Saddam did that was used as evidence of Saddam being a threat to the U.S., including the assassination attempt on former President Bush (the father), shooting at U.S. plans in no-fly zones and paying suicide bombers to attack Israel, which is a friend of the U.S. There were other reasons, too, I just can't remember them. So, that's the U.S. side of things as far as "permission" goes.
Concerning the U.N., if I remember correctly, the Security Council did NOT give Bush permission to invade Iraq. Supporters of Bush, like myself, however, point out that a lot of the members of the Security Council were being bribed by Saddam Hussein through the Oil for Food program, which led to them not supporting Bush invading Iraq because then their shady dealings would have been uncovered (which they, embarassingly for these countries, were exposed).
With Obama, I believe it's the opposite: he didn't get Congressional approval for Libya, but didn't ask for it, but DID get U.N. approval. Dennis Kucinich said he and most other Democrats would have voted against it, anyway, so Obama probably knew that and bypassed Congress for that reason.
Best post of the Year.
sent you a PM to further talk about this SE
-
PLM owned here. Still, doesn't mean that any of the wars are morally justified.
-
I admit I haven't followed Lybia a whole lot, since I've focused more on the middle east, but what exactly is America doing there? All I read about are the rebels and NATO. Doesn't sound like America is engaged in war or anything there.
-
They're not engaged in war
-
They're not engaged in war
So what are we talking about?
-
I admit I haven't followed Lybia a whole lot, since I've focused more on the middle east, but what exactly is America doing there? All I read about are the rebels and NATO. Doesn't sound like America is engaged in war or anything there.
It's actually quite difficult to pin down what America's involvement is now. Early on, we were doing the bulk of the work. With the transition to NATO command (and ostensibly before), we were supposed to be doing only the sort of stuff that we do which others can't. C&C, battlefield surveillance, that kind of stuff. My guess is that we dealt with iron hand and slinging tomahawks all hell over the place the first couple of days, and then moved into the support role. Honestly, I don't know as I'd consider this a war any more than Clinton's Iraq soiree. It's more like helping others fight a war.
-
Does America have troups on the ground there actually fighting? I thought it was mostly air strikes.
-
Not that I've heard, but I don't know all the details
-
I'd think there would have to be some troops on the ground lasering targets, etc.
-J
-
If there are any Americans operating on the ground over there, they're the Bermuda shorts wearing type, armed with briefcases full of Krugerrands. I believe the French do have some guys on the ground operating as advisers.
Needing guys on the ground to laze targets is a thing of the past. You do that from on high.
-
If there are any Americans operating on the ground over there, they're the Bermuda shorts wearing type, armed with briefcases full of Krugerrands. I believe the French do have some guys on the ground operating as advisers.
Needing guys on the ground to laze targets is a thing of the past. You do that from on high.
not true, i can personally attest to that.
it depends on the specific location.
-
If there are any Americans operating on the ground over there, they're the Bermuda shorts wearing type, armed with briefcases full of Krugerrands. I believe the French do have some guys on the ground operating as advisers.
Needing guys on the ground to laze targets is a thing of the past. You do that from on high.
not true, i can personally attest to that.
it depends on the specific location.
Yeah this was my understanding too. Ricky, are there other significant reasons to have troops on the ground when you're in the air?
-J
-
If there are any Americans operating on the ground over there, they're the Bermuda shorts wearing type, armed with briefcases full of Krugerrands. I believe the French do have some guys on the ground operating as advisers.
Needing guys on the ground to laze targets is a thing of the past. You do that from on high.
not true, i can personally attest to that.
it depends on the specific location.
Unless you're going to tell us there are troops on the ground, I figure you're talking about lazing targets. Is it something you actually need, though? I'm sure having a guy there to light up a tank is great, but I suspect we can still do a helluva lot of damage without him. There's a major policy problem with having troops there. I'm guessing there isn't enough need to bother. Also, I think the French and British are handling armor on their own now. Is there anything else that needs to be lazed?